GOOGLE WAVE FAILURE: LESSON LEARNED FOR DIFFUSION OF AN ONLINE COLLABORATION TOOL Laddawan Kaewkitipong Peter Ractham Department of Management Information Systems Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University Thailand INTRODUCTION Background and Motivation Collaboration has become increasingly important to the success of today’s enterprises. Modern organizations have been attempting to capitalize on their ability to collaborate between business units and manufacturing facilities to develop better products and services [17]. To achieve their goals, they no longer rely only on internal collaboration within their organization, but also on working closely and exchanging ideas with external partners. In other words, collaboration is viewed as a critical success factor in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage [2]. The need to collaborate is also seen in everyday’s life. A family, which has one or more family members who live abroad, might need to find a way to plan their holiday together. A group of friends who want to organize a party may need a tool to help them obtain common decisions more efficiently. As a result, many collaboration tools have been implemented to facilitate this kind of information sharing as well as decision-making tasks. Nevertheless, little has been reported on adoption success of such tools. In fact, diffusion of collaboration tools still remains as one of the most challenging problems in the area of IS research [31, 43]. Challenged by the problems and considering collaboration important activities, Google has launched many online tools to promote collaboration. Some of their popular tools are Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Calendar. An infamous tool, Google Wave, was one of the most ambitious products which many features that can help to facilitate online collaboration. Google Wave was defined as “… a live, shared space on the web where people can discuss and work together using richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more” [16]. In short, it is “a personal communication and collaboration tool” [48]. The tool was first introduced in the annual Google I/O conference in May, 2009. It was positioned as a mixture of email, instant messaging, and online synchronous and asynchronous collaboration, or in other words a social form of Gmail, where a group of people can communicate with each other in a single thread and can share images, files and videos in real time [16]. Also, it allows users to embed and integrate different types of multimedia, such as YouTube and Google Earth, as well as has the ability to extend its features by installing different extensions, such as PDF support and Mindmap [37]. Page | 1 Despite such innovative features and the initial hype, Urs Hölzle, the senior vice president of operations and Google Fellow at Google, has announced on August, 4th 2010, around a year after its launch, that Google ceased the Google Wave project. Such decision by Google has become widely criticized, and many early adopters were puzzled and written to call for public discussion on various popular tech websites. The adopters posted valid questions on why Google Wave failed. This enigma also gain much interest from IS researchers. The downfall of Google Wave was very interesting that it posted a reasonably initial hype amongst general internet users but did not get much attention after its launch to guarantee its survival. Objective and Research Question According to Rogers [40], adoption is a decision to continue full use of an innovation. Therefore, this paper sets to understand why many individual users decided not to continue full use of Google Wave. It seeks to identify factors accounting for the adoption failure of Google Wave. Clearly speaking, this research attempts to answer the following research question: “Why did Google Wave fail?” The individual level, rather than the organization level, is of interest, as the individual users are generally the driving force in diffusing the technology across distance [31]. Diffusion of Innovation theory is applied as an initial framework to guide the content analysis of Google Wave users’ viewpoints on the failure of the tool. LITERATURE REVIEW IT/IS adoption and relevant theories The issue of IT/IS adoption have long been discussed but still receive continuously attention. This is partly because of mixed findings among studies which were conducted with organizations of similar size [35]. Also, it is arguably that different technologies may possess different characteristics and have divergent effects on the adoption decision. For example, prior research on Group Support System (GSS) adoption found that the success of GSS is frequently attributed to its specific characteristics, such as the ability to communicate anonymously and in parallel, and to keep record of the meeting minutes [33]. However, prior literature on Collaborative Information Technology (CIT) adoption mainly focused on organizational and environmental factors affecting the adoptions. Technological aspect seemed to be disregarded or received very little attention. For example, Munkvold and Anson [32] focused on management supports and roles of project champion and found that the two factors played an important role in the adoption of an electronic meeting system in an organization. Bajwa et al. [1] were interested in organizational factors, such as organization size, IT function size, and degree of integration and centralization of decision making significantly and found these factors influencing CIT adoption both in United States and in Australia. Besides, despite the fact that diffusion is often seeded at the individual level [31], these prior studies were Page | 2 conducted at the organization level. Examples of prior studies which focused on CIT adoption factors are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Prior studies which focused on CIT adoption in organizations Authors Research focus Munkvold and Anson Organizational Adoption and Diffusion of Electronic (2001) Meeting Systems Mark and Poltrock Diffusion of a collaborative technology in a large, (2004) complex, distributed organization Bajwa et al. (2005) Antecedents of collective adoption and use of CITs in the US, Australia, and Hong Kong organizations Pervan et al. (2005) A study of the adoption and utilization of seven collaboration technologies in large organizations in Australia and New Zealand Chong et al. (2009) Factors affecting the adoption level of c-commerce in electrical and electronic organizations in Malaysia The prior studies reviewed in this research mainly are those concerning adoption factors. Although there are other adoption studies which attempted to explain IT/IS adoption as a complex process going on in various organizational/individual settings, this research attempts to identify factors contributing to the adoption failure of Google Wave; therefore those studies were not included here. Although a large number of technology adoption studies have been conducted, Google Wave possessed a different set of characteristics and therefore requires specific research. Since Google targeted the tool for a wider audience, including general public, attributes of the technology are a main focus of the study rather than other organizational and environmental factors. Therefore, DoI is considered an appropriate theory to start with. METHODOLOGY The objective of this paper was to understand the reasons Google Wave failed to get adopted. The mixed method research design will be applied. The researchers combined content analysis, a quantitative research technique, with an in-depth interview, a qualitative research technique. The latter was used in order to triangulate and complement the former. Therefore the research methodology was divided into two parts. Quantitative Research Page | 3 In the first part, the researchers attempted to i) identify factors that Google Wave users considered responsible for the adoption failure of the tool, and ii) rank the factors from most- cited factors to least-cited factors. Content analysis was chosen to make inferences from the data. According to Krisppendorff [24], Content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data to their context (p.21). It can be used to examine any piece of writing or occurrence of recorded communication [28]. Therefore, the method is considered appropriate and helpful. Data Collection As mentioned in the introduction, many early adopters had written on various popular websites and called for discussion on Google Wave failure. The researchers considered those written opinions an interesting and appropriate source to learn about Google Wave failure for three reasons. First, online forums were places which usually gathered a number of early adopters who were keen on sharing their opinions about certain tools. Therefore online forums which discussed Google Wave failure seemed to be a good source of opinions from early Google Wave adopters. This could provide as equally relevant as primary data from interview. Second, it reduced the limitation on data collection as there was no need to search for Google Wave users. Besides, the written form is considered appropriate and helpful in avoiding transcribing mistakes [28]. Third, individuals usually expressed their views freely and naturally on online forums; hence it seems to be neutral and free from pressure. Therefore, instead of surveying a number of users who have used and decided to discontinue their use of Google Wave, the researcher chose to understand the underlying reasons